Japan Senior Lawmaker Calls Americans “Monocellular” And “Simple-Minded”

I would argue against this, but that may be too complicated for my American mind. Report from the Associated Press:

A key figure in Japan’s ruling party dubbed Americans “simple-minded” in a speech to fellow lawmakers Wednesday.

It was not clear what prompted the remarks by Democratic Party heavyweight Ichiro Ozawa at a political seminar, in which he otherwise paid tribute to Americans’ commitment to democracy, saying it was something Japan should learn from.

“I like Americans, but they are somewhat monocellular,” the former Democratic Party leader said. “When I talk with Americans, I often wonder why they are so simple-minded.”

Ozawa didn’t elaborate on what aspect of Americans made him compare them monocellular organisms, a term also used to mean shortsighted or dumb.

There is growing speculation that the 68-year-old former party leader — renowned as a backroom dealer and election strategist but unpopular among the wider public — may run against rival Prime Minister Naoto Kan in a Sept. 14 election for the party leadership.

Ozawa steered clear of that topic in his speech at the seminar to about 50 lawmakers from the party and dozens of other invitees. But later Wednesday he hinted he would, telling supporters his decision on whether to run would hopefully “respond to your expectations.” He said he needed more time to make that decision.

Continues at AP News

34 Comments on "Japan Senior Lawmaker Calls Americans “Monocellular” And “Simple-Minded”"

  1. Evidently he's as culturally illiterate and arrogant as most Americans. What's at play here is a cultural gap…Japanese appreciate subtlety…American's don't. We can be smart…but we're generally very direct. To us…Japanese often seem like they won't get to the point. I watch this mistake get made regularly between Americans and Japanese here in town…because we have a Japanese owned parts plant nearby. Of course…I have an unfair advantage…my significant other is half-Japanese…so theres a little insight in this household that most folks don't get to take advantage of.

    • Festernaecus | Aug 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm |

      I don't know. I tend to agree with the man. Americans are, by and large, woefully under-educated compared to our counterparts elsewhere in the industrialized world. Furthermore, we're pretty much culture-free. Add to that the crippling intellectual stultification born of a kindergarten-assed binary political system and a lowest-common-denominator media hegemony, and it's not hard to see why this guy thinks we're all idiots.

      • As a country…oh yes…we're bedeviled by herds of 'Jersey Shore'-level morons. That much is true…need stupid?…we got plenty of it!

        But I'm speaking context to his experience. His dealing have largely been with politicians and businessmen…who aren't really all that stupid…but they were very likely culturally illiterate when it comes to dealing with Japanese sensibilities. Many countries have very different mores regarding social interaction and even conversation…so I strongly suspect that his experiences even with intelligent Americans still soured him on us as a people…but mostly because he's likely grading us against the way a Japanese man might have dealt with him…which is more than a little unfair.

        • Earbudcontender | Aug 25, 2010 at 11:02 pm |

          He is probably talking about money when referring to single mindedness. But as you said they are very subtle so I don't know what single subject do American fixate on according to him. And this country is lacking culture to unite it but thats the nature of freedom. The Police and military have a solid culture, its like a country within a country.

        • The main criticism here is short sightedness. When all that matters is the next stockholders meeting or the next election then both politicians and businessmen are guilty as charged. When was the last time that you heard a businessman or politician seriously take into consideration what could happen ten, twenty years in the future?
          If the pinnacle of your culture is “get rich and get out” then you are in for some legitimate criticism.

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 26, 2010 at 6:24 am |

            it is the greatest shortcoming of our system,
            there is no long term planning or leadership.
            our leaders focus only on the next election and beating the other side
            I have to agree, to a large degree we are a very simpleminded nation

        • YezuSmith | Aug 27, 2010 at 4:48 am |

          America has never been great at hiding our stupid. “Stupid is as stupid does” is a phrase far older than Forest Gump. The man or woman who can't point out iraq on a map, may still be able to build your house, save your dog from a fire, grow your dope, teach your kids English (probably not social studies though), or do your taxes. One level of ignorance does not indicate another, not should intelligence be the sole determining factor in human worth. Its all relative…
          Speaking of relativism, l we could all use a lesson in cultural relativism. To him Americans may seem “mono-cellular”, but this only shows the limits of his thinking. It is unfortunate that such men get to be world leaders. The world reels from the effects of leaders who cannot think cross culturally.

          • SuperHawk | Aug 27, 2010 at 4:50 am |

            Oh god, you have to love these late night posts and their subtle variations on the English language!

    • Vox Penii | Aug 26, 2010 at 8:03 am |

      “Japanese appreciate subtlety…American's don't.”

      What a racist statement.

      And what an inaccurate statement. Have you ever watched a Japanese game show? Such shows are widely popular, and are about as un-subtle as you can imagine.

      • You base your assessment of Japanese culture on a game show? NOW THATS RACIST!

        Anthropology isn't your strong suit, is it? Trust me…I can tell. The reason you see such contrast in Japanese leisure is because their professional lives are dominated by seriousness. It makes for explosive release of tension when they relax. Interpersonal conduct, particularly with strangers in a professional setting, is undertaken very seriously and with an appreciation for the subtle…at least when dealing with other Japanese businessmen…which makes Americans seem like wild cards.

        American culture, especially in business, is incredibly direct. Subtlety has little value…this isn't a value judgement, as you seem to imply, just a statement of fact. Americans move fast to the point and want business over and done with…there is very little pretense involved unless its absolutely required. Our humor is subtle…but our business practices aren't.

        My statement is highly accurate…your limited experience and insight hinders you.

        • Vox Penii | Aug 26, 2010 at 11:43 am |

          I guess I stand corrected. A man with a half-Japanese girlfriend and 58 hits on his blogger profile ought to know a lot more about Japanese culture than a United Nations observer who criticized the “deep and profound” racism of the Japanese:


          • Got a couple corrections for you:

            1) He's my half Japanese boyfriend. I've met his extended family and love 'em to death…but there are cultural differences that crop up if you're paying even a little attention…and I do.

            2) If you take time read more than the hit counter, you'll catch the disclaimer at the bottom in my first entry. I don't blog for fame or glory…I couldn't give a rat's ass. I vent for my own sake….which is why I don't whore for points in some silly game for vague recognition.

            3) What does an tint BBC article about the well known xenophobia of Japan (which isn't unique to them…China and both Koreas and many other SE Asian nations have a similar issue) have to do with either your contention that I am racist for suggesting that cultural differences in the way we approach business dealings exist…or my contention that your gameshow reference shows a grossly inadequate knowledge of the subject? The article is pointless and completely off topic…as well as ridiculously short and lacking in depth. It's little more than a quote and some added fluff…so apparently I DO know more…or at least choose to employ the additional knowledge.

            4) I've spent a lifetime studying…not to play the university publishing game or to be a face on TV…not for money or power…but for the pure love of knowledge…the broadening of perspective. Frankly…there are people in positions of great responsibility who are barely literate on most topics outside of their specialty.

            I have no lock on ultimate truth…but I've got as much right as any to throw my words in the ring…and if you feel like numbers count for something, check that Disqus clout number on the front page of Disinfo under People. Apparently a lot of people like my commentary…but even if they all hated it, I'd say what I felt and believed just the same.

      • It's not a racist statement because not all Americans are white and not all whites are American. Duh!

  2. Beware the sweeping generalisation
    Yes, there is a large number of unintelligent Americans – Some Australian comedians visited the US to interview 'people on the street'
    Q: Name a country starting with the letter U.
    A: Yugoslavia
    They also showed people a world map where Australia was clearly labled Iraq and asked people to point out which country was a danger to the US. Yep they did.
    While this was hilarious, it would be extremely ignorant and insulting of anyone to assume or say that all Americans are this dumb

    • Earbudcontender | Aug 25, 2010 at 11:04 pm |

      Most are in a sleep walking state. I find that the fixation of getting a job as the single most important goal after sex gives me people too much confidence and they become self assured too early thinking they know everything needed to survive thus making the incompetent think they are very competent.

      • Earbudcontender | Aug 25, 2010 at 11:05 pm |

        There is a wide gab between basic survival and thriving which allow for complete enjoyment of life

    • A Bad Joke | Aug 26, 2010 at 7:41 am |

      The level of depravity and stupidity of your average red neck texan is staggering. I'm guessing they went to overwhelmingly Conservative areas where the young are taught how to work a cash register, and to mow lawns rather than a Liberal area where our young are taught ideas and history, and mathematics, and philosophy, and yes PE. For a sound body does indeed help a sound mind.

      This is the conservative plot- deny the poor education and slap us in chains. They seek to be our master, and we must counter their disinformation with the truth. I'm sure Your Mom will come in and see this, and be outraged and claim that “alien space lizards” are behind it all, and Obama is the devil or some such nonsense as Marxism causes the bumble bees to disappear.

      • Vox Penii | Aug 26, 2010 at 8:10 am |

        The conservative want to deny education? Not hardly.

        In a 1909 speech to the NYC High School Teacher's association, Woodrow Wilson said:

        “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”

        See, the hypocrisy of many on the left is to ignore what their icons say and do, and instead to blame those on the right when their “progressive” plans go horribly wrong, e.g., how Glenn Beck is vilified for calling Woodrow Wilson a menace to America, when, in truth, Wilson was bound and determined to reshape America the vision of himself and his fellow self-appointed elites.

        • Gemmarama | Aug 26, 2010 at 8:22 am |

          all your post does is highlight one centre-left politician with some slightly dodgy attitudes from 1909, without actually providing any examples of conservatives who have done wonders in the sphere of education. half-arsed mate…

      • Re: healthy minds and healthy bodies: “The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. ” Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31

        Re: Marxism: “Wondering why young people spout Marxist claptrap? Look no further than the universities” by Gerard Jackson

        If Copenhagen reveals anything at all � apart from the stupidity of politicians � it is that the cult of socialism is alive and is as intolerant and as ignorant as ever. So where do young people get this socialist drivel from? Unfortunately much of it comes from our universities. This brings to mind Frank Stilwell, a socialist professor of economics at the University of Sydney and another example of the left's total inability to learn from history, particularly economic history. In Why bother about economic inequality (OnlineOpinion, 15 July 2002) he slagged, the name of equality, “economic rationalism, economic fundamentalism and neoliberalism”, leftwing codenames for free market economics.

        In support of his argument for greater equality of incomes he deferred to John Stuart Mill. In keeping with the long-discredited Ricardian system Mill made the dreadful error of divorcing 'distribution' (income) from production, which led him to conclude that “The Distribution of Wealth depend on the laws and customs of society”. (John Stuart Mill. Principles of Political Economy, University of Toronto Press, 1965, p. 200.) One has only to think of the late and unlamented � unlamented among those who love liberty, that is � Soviet Union to realise how incredibly stupid Mill's view is, especially in the light of his own nascent view of imputation. (Ibid. p. 31.)

        In a free market the vast majority of incomes are not 'distributed' but earned. Marginal productivity theory is the means by which economists explain market outcomes. Now in The Australian Financial Review (17 December 1998) Stilwell regurgitated the same socialist crap. This time he claimed capitalist countries had traditionally tried to ameliorate the economic inequalities that free labor markets generated. Complete nonsense. First, it has always been the tradition in Christian countries to try and alleviate the conditions of the poor. One of the great achievements of capitalism was not only to eliminate mass poverty but even poverty as it was traditionally understood. Not a hint of this from the Marxist Stilwell.

        Now for a few historical facts, those things that Marxist's prefer not to debate in public forums, that will cast considerable light on the matter of living standards and wages. Nineteenth century Britain saw real wages quadruple even though the population rose by nearly 300 per cent. This was an unprecedented event. Yet Stillwell clearly insinuated, as he did in a later article, that free labour markets, meaning capitalism, had, in his own words, created “major casualties”. (I wonder what he calls the100 million people killed in the last century by Marxist regimes?)

        Social polices to alleviate distress were not initially designed as a means to address the phony issue of market inequalities, even though leftists eventually perverted them to that end. Stillwell pointed out that Australia's arbitration system has endeavoured to ensure that wages do not fall below the “social minimum . . . [and] prevent the emergence of a 'working poor'”. He then claimed labor market deregulation “undermines these arrangements.” In other words, free markets, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, cause poverty. This is complete and utter left-wing bilge. The very thought that the state, any state, can guarantee its citizens a specified living standard is absurd, as a moment's reflection on the appalling living conditions that prevailed in former communist states proves.

        Real wages are basically determined by the ratio of labour to the capital structure, not by posturing politicians, bullying unioncrats and their Marxist allies in academia � and certainly not by the “customs of society”. Therefore, as a country expands its capital structure, adding to it more and more complex stages of production embodying new technology, it raises living standards. Moreover, as Stillwell knows, or should, marginal productivity theory explains why there is a tendency in the free market for workers to receive the full value of their labor, which in turn is paid by consumers and not employers.

        One of the roles of a businessman is to act as an intermediary between consumers and the factors of production. This renders absurd Stillwell's claim that companies should keep up wages to avert poverty. Any attempt to raise wages above market rates will raise unemployment. The obverse is that any attempt to keep wages below market rates will cause labor shortages.

        What really nails Stillwell is the fact that the “distributional hierarchy” is a socialist myth. Most incomes, as I have already pointed out, are not distributed, but earned (with the exception, perhaps, of some academics). Marxist attempts to demonstrate that labour was exploited by having part of its income (surplus value) confiscated by capitalists were completely demolished by the “marginalist revolution,” and especially by the brilliant work of Eugen von B�hm-Bawerk (Capital and Interest, three volumes,1884 – 1912).

        Stillwell is too shrewd a propagandist to directly use Marx's discredited exploitation theory of labor to attack free labor markets, so what he could not achieve by open debate he hoped to gain by stealth. Hence his insinuation that there is something unjust about market income disparities even though market participants tend to be paid in accordance with the value of their work.

        This enabled him to confidently assert that a deregulated labor market “could certainly swell the ranks of those classified as living in poverty” despite the fact that the greatest cause of poverty in Australia was the unemployment that his beloved unions and arbitration commission created. But then again, Marxists are not generally noted for heeding inconvenient facts.

        (In his brilliant seminar at the University of Vienna in the 1890s B�hm-Bawerk utterly demolished Marx's economics. B�hm-Bawerk's analysis was published in English in 1898 under the title Karl Marx and the Close of His System)

        Stilwell's attack on the idea that the real wages of the lower-paid should be allowed to fall so that the market will clear is totally misconceived. It ignores the economic fact that if this group's income were excessive in relation to the value of its members' product then this involves a forcible transfer of income from displaced workers. Although he indirectly admitted this by conceding that lower wage rates could lead to more people being employed, he ignored the ramifications. Stillwell's most appalling argument against market-rate wage adjustments was the fallacy of demand deficiency. It is so bad that if I do not quote him in full readers might think I misrepresented him:

        If total wage payments fall, this may lead to lower consumption levels. Unless the goods and services being produced are for export markets, this would lead to a tendency towards over-production.

        (Incidentally, it is ironic that one of the most brilliant refutations of the demand-deficiency fallacy was penned by John Stuart Mill in his essay Of the Influence of Consumption on Production. Although written in 1829 or 1830 it was not published until 1844. As an aside, I'm inclined to think that Mill's reputation as an economist has � like Kenneth Galbraith's � more to do with his literary flair rather than a gift for economic analysis).

        Firstly, what has “total wage payments” to do with anything? Market economists only call for cuts in wage rates that are above market clearing levels. Only Keynesians and Marxists seem to harp on about en bloc wage cuts. Even if, for example, the state was able to enforce a general wage cut the effect would not be to lower aggregate demand but to create labor shortages and encourage firms to find ways of raising incomes above the maximum to attract workers. (This phenomenon is called “wage drift” and was even documented in fourteenth century England.)

        If reducing real wage rates in general caused 'demand deficiency' then Keynesian policies would never have initially succeeded because they only work by using inflation to cut real wage rates in relation to the demand for the marginal product. Secondly, raising wage rates above market clearing levels leads to withheld capacity by causing unemployment. This is just another way of saying that it reduces demand, the opposite of Stillwell's argument which is clearly based on the discredited purchasing-power theory of wages. (See W. H. Hutt's The Keynesian Episode: A Reassessment, LibertyPress, 1979.)

        Now we can either express demand in terms of supplies or in terms of money, as do most economists. It follows that even if cutting wage rates did not reduce unemployment it would still not reduce monetary demand but only change its composition, which also means that demand in terms of supplies would not change either. Thirdly, by implying that by letting wage rates adjust to market clearing values the demand for labor would not increase, Stilwell, without any justification, slipped indeterminacy into his argument, thus sidestepping marginal productivity theory.

        But even if these wage rates were indeterminate over a given range unemployment would still emerge if wage rates were pushed above their market rates. Thirdly, as Josiah Tucker pointed out about 250 years ago: “One man's work is another man's employment.” This neatly summed up the economic truism (Say's Law) that supplies are demands; thus, pricing people back into work increases the demand for other products and restores the flow of incomes.

        This is why total demand rises in these circumstances instead of falling. And this is why total payrolls (total wage payments) rise. Once again, let us turn to history. Hoover's belief in the purchasing-power theory of wages was behind his policy of maintaining money wage rates even as prices were falling. The results were tragic: by March 1933 total payrolls had fallen by about 70 per cent and unemployment had leapt to 25 per cent. So much for Stillwell's purchasing-power theory of wages. (Any wonder I consider the term Marxist economist to be an oxymoron).

        In his final paragraph Stillwell impugned market economics by referring to “neo-liberal ideologies” � and this from an unrepentant Marxist ideologue. If free market economics is an ideology, as this Marxist hack claims, then I challenge him to prove it. As the 'Duke' said: “That'll be the day.”

        Of course, Stillwell made the usual left-wing genuflection toward “distributional equity”. He did the same thing in his online article when he said that in his “view . . . there should be ceilings as well as floors in relation to income distribution, but we could reasonably debate whether the ratio of ceiling to floor should be 3:1, 10:1 or whatever”. Really? I have five questions for him:

        1. Why is the present pattern of 'distribution' inequitable? 2. What is an equitable 'distribution' of income? 3. Why is a pattern of 'distribution' designed by the likes of you economically and morally superior to one produced by the market place? 4. By what scientific means did you arrive at your conclusion? 5. What the devil do you mean by “whatever”?

        Stilwell's casual approach to economics brings to mind S. G. Strumilin, one of Stalin's 'economists', who announced: “Our task is not to study economics but to change it. We are bound by no laws”. (Cited in Robert Coquest's Harvest of Sorrow, Pimlico, 2002, p. 112.) Well we all know how that little experiment ended up.

        Unfortunately, it seems Professor Stilwell's views on income differences are highly contagious. Tony Featherstone (or is that Featherbrain?), Business Review Weekly's then-managing editor, led one of his articles with this inanity: “Nearly everyone wants to be wealthier but the relationship between income and happiness is weakening.” The subheading contained this dim-witted gem: “But can they [the rich] go on increasing their wealth at this rate, and what about the poor?” (14 July 2004). This journalist has no idea what the hell he is really talking about.

        Note: The mark of any ideologue is a refusal to consider evidence that contradicts his position. This is why Marxists can claim that the collapse of the Marxist states and the failure of socialist 'experiments' do not prove socialism cannot succeed. And these people have got the gall to call free-marketeers ideologues.

        Leftwing history v. economic theory. This is another example of the anti-capitalist bigotry that is spoonfed to students by leftwing activists.


        • Yeah…liberal Nazis and their physical health fetish…uh…speaking of that…did ya happen to see that article regarding the USMC guided JROTC program indoctrinating 9th graders by posing as their new mandatory PE credits? That good old liberal USMC, hotbed of leftist activism as we know it, is up to its old tricks…

          …or more likely, fascism is the province of the Right…of conservatism, or the rigid and hidebound traditionalists…and no amount of quote cherry picking can alter it or make it less true.

        • In a free market the vast majority of incomes are not 'distributed' but earned.

          Which is why Mexico City/Delhi/Manila are bracketed by endless shantytowns…because total free market capitalism lends itself to egregious abuse. Despite all claims to the contrary, total freedom of capitalism has never, ever, throughout the entire course of history, ever managed to build wealth for many. It has only ever secured wealth for a few…it careens naturally towards feudalism and or oligarchy…and must be responsibly kept in check to prevent this, because the alternative is perpetual upheaval and chaos. A modern economy requires a middle class to sustain its consumerist cycle…and a middle class cannot be sustained in a total free market…or, as America has proven in just 30 short years, in a marginally excessive free market.

  3. baph777atyt | Aug 26, 2010 at 7:24 am |

    Well it's easy to see where he's coming from.

    98% of us believe in a God that there's no evidence for and that has been proven time and time again to have no basis in reality whatsoever.

    And even though Jesus did return earlier in this decade as Christians long prophecied that he would, it was as a pile of dust and bone chips in a box in the Jerusalem Museum and not as a Holy Hell's Angel riding on the back of a hybrid of the Lone Ranger's horse Silver, a UFO, and a celestial Harley Davidson out of the Eastern Sky as Christians long said he would.

    Still many of these believers expect that Old Bone Chips And Dust is going to start walking around and giving them all Cadillacs and Mansions, so they don't really have to support political agendas like Obama's which might actually do them some real earthly good.

    • do you have proof of these assertions regarding Jesus or are you talking out your …………………………………………………………….well you know ? i suppose you don't need proof when it comes to your own propaganda , only when christians make claim do you need proof . sounds a little hypocrytical , well actually it sounds completely hypocritical !

      • baph777atyt | Aug 26, 2010 at 7:20 pm |

        Yeah, I have proof. I guess you wren't aware that they had found Jesus' tomb about four or five years ago.

        And, hey, by saying it's actually Jesus' tomb that's give the Christians quite a lot as most other reputable evidence going back to Gerald Massey's books on the subject tend to show that Jesus really didn't even exist.

        So, the Christians have dust and bones rather than nothing.

        Heck, ghost hunters have more evidence that ghosts are real and that there is no hell than Christians do for any of their beliefs.

        • SuperHawk | Aug 27, 2010 at 4:06 am |

          Nobody found the Jesus tomb. This is a silly thing for you to have said.

          • SuperHawk | Aug 27, 2010 at 4:29 am |

            Film he talk about is Lost Tomb of The Jesus. Yeshua, Yosef, Jose, and Maria very common names. The evidence is week, unconvincing in my opinion. Very little evidence for the Jesus at all. Though the Jesus evidence seems convincing to me. In 93 A.D. Flavius Josephus write simple blurb about the Jesus, very similar to gospels. Pliny write about him in 112. Also Tacitus writes about the Jesus in 116. Writings within a few generations of death, but no evidence of a body. I cannot pretend to know what happened to the Jesus body. I cannot pretend to know if the Jesus lived and died, and if so why? Leave these for theologians.
            If not Christian it not important whether the Jesus lived or died. The wind of Jesus reshaped the planet. Whether like it or not narrative of last 2,000 years-the Jesus wins.

          • baph777atyt | Aug 27, 2010 at 8:54 am |

            Actually the evidence is very strong that the dust and bone chips in that box belonged to the man and myth Jesus of Nazareth. However, even university professors do have an agenda in keeping the Jesus myth alive because if they totally showed Jesus to be no more than dust and bones, then they would stand to lose some of their revenue too. So, yes, what is in that box is all that is left of Jesus.

            I encountered a similar episode in my abnormal psychology class in college. They were talking about how the victims of the Christians in Salem, Mass, could have had ergot poisonining which explained their visions. I told them since New York and Salem aren't that far apart, then that most likely means Joseph Smith was also suffering from ergot poisoning too when he had his visions.

            And the professor, an instructor at a fairly reputable istitution of higher learning, was like you can't compare a religious experience to what happened in Salem.

            Well, it's either ergot poisoning was causing Smith's visions or that he was an out and out fabricator.

            I would prefer to give a person the benefit of a doubt.

            So, it's easy to see that because they do make a bit of money of their own from religion, part of the reason it's still prominent in society is that collges themselves don't go as far as they should in trying to remove those superstitions from our society.

          • SuperHawk | Aug 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

            I don't think that Smith was suffering from ergot poisoning. Such poisoning causes not only hallucinations, but also spasms, diarrhea, seizures, and gangrene.
            There is no evidence whatsoever that those bones belonged to Jesus. The only “evidence” the documentary presents is that the people in the tomb share the same names (very common names) with those in the bible. This may be great for a documentary, but it isn't science, it isn't archeology. Hell it isn't even good journalism.

          • Nah, the bones belong to Jesus. And even if they don't, he's still late for the party he was supposed to show up to ten years ago. Very late? Why? Because Jesus never was the son of some imaginary God that the Hebrews decided to steal from books and traditions that they ripped off of the Sumerians and Egyptians.

            So, it's kind of a moot point in some ways as these Americans that I mention in the first post are still blindly living their lives in accordance with a bs dogma that no evidence whatsoever points out the credibility of.

            As I mentioned in my second post Ghost Hunters have all sorts of physical evidence that they can put on display as proof of their believes ranging from evps to some images to other types of physical evidence that they've recorded multiple times including some that would support the notion that many people that quite a few Fundamentalist Christians would say would be in Hell are still roaming around their old haunts.

            What do Christians have? Well, if those bones in the crypt don't belong to Jesus, then they don't have anything at all.

            One quick note on Smith: I'm pretty sure that in his autobiography that he in fact did mention being sick or in some kind of turmoil about the time he had his visions of Moroni.

  4. When Americans say the same thing about foreigners, what do we assume about them? Japan has jingoism, too.

    Granted, America has more than its share of simple-minded idiots, and we are lagging behind in a lot of ways, but I'm pretty sure that if I lived in Japan I would find the same thing.

  5. SuperHawk | Aug 27, 2010 at 4:01 am |

    Hey Japan! We didn't even need our whole cell to kick your ass! WE DID WITH ONLY ONE ATOM!

    • An A-bomb derives its energy from MANY atoms being split.

      You're being monocellular. *g*

  6. An A-bomb derives its energy from MANY atoms being split.

    You’re being monocellular. *g*

Comments are closed.